User talk:ElliotJoyce

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, ElliotJoyce! Thank you for your contributions. I am Roleplayer and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! role^player 22:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

African slave trade

Undoing people's work is usually not very effective in the long run, and can lead to inconvenience if you violate the three-revert rule, even if it's unintentional. Things have become complicated over time, and it's not obvious how the three-revert rule works, so it might be worth your time to read over it. In the near term, it might be best to pause and let people digest your changes, and take up anything else on the talk page. To avoid triggering the three-revert rule, please do not undo anyone else's edits for a day or so. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. First, you were wrong about the source- it clearly expresses that the percentage was less than 5%, therefore I am justified in correcting this. Second, you are wrong about removing the word "however": it is necessary to communicate the contrast from the sentence immediately preceding. Therefore, I find that my changes and reverts are justified, whilst yours are not. If you have a problem with basic logic, then we can take this up with a higher authority. Thank you.ElliotJoyce (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012

Your recent editing history at African slave trade shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that you self-revert your last change, or I will report you for edit-warring. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Shabazz, my reverts are explained. The other individual simply reverts with a casual quip of "tendentious." Furthermore, the source in question is from the University of Houston, a reputable institution. The fact that you've chosen to question this source, and none other, when there are many more less-reputable sources on both the African Slave Trade and Atlantic Slave Trade article, implies a bias in your consideration.ElliotJoyce (talk) 02:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:ANEW#User:ElliotJoyce reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: ). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already self-reverted. I am curious as to why my talk-page was warned, but not the other user who was reverting my edits. ElliotJoyce (talk) 02:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the page history and count the number of reverts. I hope you'll understand why one editor was warned about the 3RR rule and no others were. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your initial warning clearly states that consequences can follow from edit warring regardless of whether the 3 revert rule has been violated or not. It can be reasonably said that the other user was edit warring in like fashion as I, perhaps even worse since my reverts all had a detailed explanation for their motivation and reason. Now you write on my talk page focusing solely on the violation of the 3 revert rule, without any mention of the fact that edit warring itself without violation of the 3 revert rule can result in consequence, yet no warning appears on the talk page of the other user. I would love to hear your hair-splitting argument now about the differences between the 3 revert rule and edit warring in general, and why the end result of this involves no warning whatsoever on the other user's talk page. Please, enlighten me. ElliotJoyce (talk) 03:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last and only warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Broadwater Farm riot. Tgeairn (talk) 03:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't vandalize anything; I reverted an edit. The words written therein were not mine, but reverts to an older edit that I thought to be more informative. You are mischaracterizing this situation. ElliotJoyce (talk) 03:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

edit warring

I have noticed that you are attempting a campaign of personal harassment against me - and clearly you are a fan of edit-warring. This is a very silly policy, and I suggest you desist. As for your charge of being 'anti-European' that is simply puerile.Ackees (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uncovering the sheer scale of this systematic campaign of abuse, I have now reported you to the The Administrators

The campaign is well-justified, Mr. Ackees. You have continued to vandalize the African Slave Trade page by inputting erroneous information, particularly, the opposite of what the source provided. Your other edits are designed to infuse anti-European bias in the articles. I welcome your report to the Administrators; perhaps this will bring greater attention to your blatant out-of-control editing on Wikipedia. Thank you. ElliotJoyce (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for For edit warring, Wikihounding and Civility issues.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No appeal- I will wait out the 48 hours. But please take a look at Ackees editing history; he has been going through articles and either deleting material or inserting material that lessens the neutrality of the article in question; specifically, his bias is anti-European and anti-white. My intention was not to harass him, but rather to correct the information he has provided. Thanks. ElliotJoyce (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the user Ackees has made a direct personal attack against me in his last edit of the article Benin City, calling me a "neo-Nazi." Not only does his edit remove critical information from the article in effort to cast an anti-European, anti-white tone, but his remark against me is in clear violation of of Wikipedia's prohibition against personal attacks. ElliotJoyce (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, ElliotJoyce. You have new messages at Roleplayer's talk page.
Message added 19:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

role^player 19:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't call other editors racist

Not named accounts, not IPs.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't call anyone racist- I asked them to stop making racist edits on Wikipedia. Will you also warn User talk:Ackees for calling me a neo-nazi in his last edit of the article Benin City? That is a direct attack- surely if calling someone "racist" is unjustifiable, calling someone a "neo-nazi" is no good either.ElliotJoyce (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You have just returned from a 48-hour block for "Persistant edit warring, Wikihounding and civility issues". It is not very sensible to return immediately to the same articles, making the same edits which led to your block. A future block for the same behaviour is likely to be longer than 48 hours. RolandR (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given your history of hounding my recent edits, I will report you if you persist reverting my justifiable and sourced contributions to the site. My edits are all sourced and I have made a note of the 3 revert rule and other policies that got me in trouble before. ElliotJoyce (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you again, for another 48 hours, for the continued edit-warring and overall unconstructive behaviour. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I complained about the user Ackees calling me a "neo-nazi" in one of his edits on the Benin City article, yet nothing was done regarding this. He has since removed sourced material from that article and re-added POV material that directly contradicts the historical account and the source, yet he goes unpunished, but I am blocked again for another 48 hours.ElliotJoyce (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to Report Another User

Hello; you recently blocked me and my block has expired and I would like to know if I am within my rights to report Ackees for making a personal attack against me in his edit summary on the Benin City article. Particularly, he has called me "neo-nazi", not to mention he removed accurate material which I have since restored and provided a reliable source for. Please let me know how I can bring this matter to the attention of the administrators- I am new to Wikipedia and I do not know how to report another user or where to report him/her. Thank you. (Also, here is the link to the place where I was reported by Ackees: WP:ANEW#User:ElliotJoyce reported by User:Ackees (Result: )ElliotJoyce (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you managed to find the place where to report this, and i also see that you managed to get blocked again right after the release of the previous one for exactly the same reasons as the last. Elliot, a block might have a limited duration in most times, but once it expires it does not mean that the edits that caused it to be put in place are suddenly all OK. As explained before edit warring, Threatening to report (multiple) users for administrative action unless they cease doing something and Attacking and hounding editors is simply not done.

Besides, I would especially point out that an edit war is still an edit war even if you limit yourself to two reverts a day. What counts is the spirit of the rule that consensus is reached trough discussion. Slow-reverting, moving across multiple article's or doing two reverts on an article in an attempt to stay under the 3RR limit is simply gaming the system. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I complained about the user Ackees calling me a "neo-nazi" in one of his edits on the Benin City article, yet nothing was done regarding this. He has since removed sourced material from that article and re-added POV material that directly contradicts the historical account and the source, yet he goes unpunished, but I am blocked again for another 48 hours.ElliotJoyce (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Vandalism"

Please be a little more careful about referring good-faith edits as vandalism. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry- it was just such a huge redaction and lessening of the article's presentation that I thought it really was vandalism.ElliotJoyce (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable. It may (or may not) have been POV-pushing (with that article, I have trouble telling, it's been back and forth so many times), but if it's not actually disruptive, I try very hard not to use the V-word. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noted- thanks. Also, I had a quick question regarding editing an article that the user Ackees and I had a bit of a struggle over. This is are the Benin City article. I would rather avoid getting blocked again (by you or any other admin) so I do not want to start reverting his edits right away, but given that his edits, at least to me, scream of POV, I am planning on at least rewording, if not reverting, that article in the near future, and I am wondering if this is acceptable. For what it's worth, that article was not the reason I was blocked last time. ElliotJoyce (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite likely that any further reverts/edits on that article will get you a quick edit warring block, yes. Discuss the issue on the talk page, get consensus (pull in a third opinion if necessary), and then let someone else make the edit so you don't get in trouble. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well I edited a bit of it yesterday- I tried to make it sound more impartial by not presenting the questioned source as fact, but only as "so reported by" and I added a more impartial source from JSTOR; I won't edit it again in the near future, whether someone reverts it or not, so hopefully I won't get blocked because of that.ElliotJoyce (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, ElliotJoyce. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 13:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Unblock Appeal

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ElliotJoyce (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My recent changes are not tendentious- the user Ackees returned from his block and immediately started reverting edits on articles that he was previously banned for. All I did was revert his edit once on the African Slave Trade page and once on the Benin City page, and then I reported him. ElliotJoyce (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified sockpuppet of blocked User:Vost. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm not a sockpuppet to anyone's account, so I'm not sure how you "verified" this. ElliotJoyce (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again

I have blocked you again. Actually, I was first going to go for just a week for the edit-warring, but then I saw your talkpage soapboxing at [1] and felt the project needs to be given a rest from your activities for a somewhat longer period, so now it's three months. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what your problem is- your argument makes no sense whatsoever to me. You've been hounding my activities on Wikipedia for the last month or so. My response on the talk page you referenced was a condensation of information presented in the article already.ElliotJoyce (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Hoyland

Hey, some careless admin blocked me, so I'm replying to you here. I reverted that edit before I knew that the Columbia link was dead, but it seems to me that the version right before my revert is equally unsupported by a source, so if you can find sourced material and present the information neutrally and properly weighted, then please do so. Thanks. ElliotJoyce (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]